The germans did not ...and the soviets had plans to make a "fall back" to Samara for the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff if Moscow should be lost. In Samara they build the Stalin Bunker.

Why should the surrender 41-42 when thy even have plans and make arrangements for a evacuation far east? *

Omat

* Andrew Nagorski: The Greatest Battle, 2007, pp. 165-166

_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." Anatole France

The sudden death rules being suggested carry no historical weight whatsoever. So why can't people who want them just play house rules if they want them? Will the rules be less fantastical for being made 'official' in game code? Of course not, they just carry the game further away from simulation and towards 'gamey'.

So lets say you get the 'official' thumbs up for your 'official' house rules. The next twenty threads will be taken up squabbling over their exact nature, wasting time which could be spent sorting the game. Of course, somebody will correctly point out the squabbling over how to best simulate the WitE. To this I answer there is a qualitative difference arguing over how to improve something and arguing how to take it up a blind alley.

Don't let 2 by 3 off the hook, if you're sticking by this game, demand they fix it, however long it takes.

And for those who wish to restrict discussion to 'yes' or 'no' let me remind you of the fascist pedigree of such democracy.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 12/9/2011 9:26:50 AM >

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

If it really doesn't distract the devs, and doesn't mean other stuff fails get's its necessary attention, I bet no one will object. Especially if the game can continue after that by choice of players, meaning that neither side is actually defeated, but played a good game.

The critical votes here, however, seem to be those who state that they will play with "lighter victory conditions" aka "Sudden Death rules" as SOVIET players -- not only, but also.

I do not see a point of having such a rule. Actually I'm afraid it will lead to 'I have not won with a "sudden death" in '41 so now I will lose so I better quit now and try winning another game'. As such, I will not play game with this rule as Russian. On the other hand, as the rule you propose is very easy to check, you can use it as a house rule with anyone you play with. Also, there is a Barbarossa scenario which does exactly what you want for '41, actually in a more sophisticated way. Note that very few Barbarossa campaigns are played...

ORIGINAL: Mehring The sudden death rules being suggested carry no historical weight whatsoever. So why can't people who want them just play house rules if they want them? Will the rules be less fantastical for being made 'official' in game code? Of course not, they just carry the game further away from simulation and towards 'gamey'.

I've commented before that players can easily adopt a house rule, to play by the old Russian Front boardgame victory conditions or soemthing comparable. However, it should be easy enough to take the existing non-campaign VP model and fully implement it for the campaigns, in addition to the decisive Axis victory condition already in the game for the campaigns. Is the current 'official' decisive Axis victory condition rule already in the game for both campaigns and non-campaign scenarios so fantastical that it should be deleted?? It should be recognized that the vote is not really for something completely new; it's more or less haggling about possible adjustments to current 'official' victory conditions. And it's up to 2x3 to decide if they want to make adjustments or not.

I do want to respond to the spurious comment about such rules carrying 'no historical weight whatsoever.' Huh? This is a wargame. The discussion is about this wargame's victory conditions. It's perfectly reasonable to compare player performance versus historical results and establish victory conditions whereby you 'win' the game if you do better than history and you 'lose' the game if you do worse. How you play is up to you, but at either the end of the scenario/campaign or at any predefined intermediate point(s) your gameplay performance deserves to be evaluated against the reality of history. And that's all it is. A decisive Axis (or Allied) victory based on VPs and/or specific objectives at some point in time compared to historical results only means that you win the wargame at that point. It's not about whether Russia would have really surrendered or not based on arbitrary VPs or national morale or whatever; nobody knows for sure. It's about winning or losing a wargame, and all games tend to be 'gamey' because that's what they are. It's just a game.

It will be interesting to hear what Joel has to say. If 2x3 can easily implement some modest adjustments to the existing decisive victory rule, and perhaps change this to allow players to select decisive victory as a game option up front or if selected to allow players to continue playing even after decisive victory is achieved by one side or the other, then that should be perfectly acceptable to everyone. If not so be it, a house rule could work fine. No point beating a dead horse.

Is the current 'official' decisive Axis victory condition rule already in the game for both campaigns and non-campaign scenarios so fantastical that it should be deleted??

In case you've never got there, the current Axis decisive victory condition is to virtually win every city on the map. Yes, why not let the Russian play on if both sides want to? I have no problem there.

That said, if the Axis had ever achieved this, and assuming they were able to harness them and kill off enough locals (hunger plan), it would have gained them the resources they needed for European economic autarchy, and would probably have kept the Russians weak enough for long enough to defeat/stalemate the Briitish and US. These conditions actually mean something historically, they carry historical weight. Nothing spurious there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr I do want to respond to the spurious comment about such rules carrying 'no historical weight whatsoever.' Huh? This is a wargame.

And how was this wargame described on its launch?

"The long-awaited Eastern Front mega-game has arrived!

"Matrix Games and 2by3 Games (www.2by3games.com) are proud to announce that Gary Grigsby’s War in the East is now available for purchase in the Matrix Games Online Store! Now gamers who want to experience unparalleled realism, scope, and detail on the Eastern Front done by an award-winning development team need look no further!"

emphasis added

You can measure your play against history if you want, but to have any meaning, the game must simulate historical conditions. Currently, and in spite of getting so much right, it doesn't.

Personally, I like victory conditions to carry historical weight. Otherwise you tend to end up with a game for nazi fantasists, who, sore at the historical fate of their beloved panzergrenadiers, want a game to rewrite the awful turn history took, either forcing a Russian surrender by capturing Minsk or allowing them to easily roll over Russia up to the Urals.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

ORIGINAL: Mehring That said, if the Axis had ever achieved this, and assuming they were able to harness them and kill off enough locals (hunger plan), it would have gained them the resources they needed for European economic autarchy, and would probably have kept the Russians weak enough for long enough to defeat/stalemate the Briitish and US...

Otherwise you tend to end up with a game for nazi fantasists, who, sore at the historical fate of their beloved panzergrenadiers, want a game to rewrite the awful turn history took, either forcing a Russian surrender by capturing Minsk or allowing them to easily roll over Russia up to the Urals.

You totally miss the point, again. It's not about 'forcing a surrender' in pseudo-historical terms, and it's not meant to be one-sided for only Axis decisive victory. It's about a game victory condition. Perhaps you just never played the old Avalon Hill game Russian Front that I refer to? When those VPs were checked every March and November, either side could win, so both sides were challenged to fight continually to achieve an early game victory or at least deny their opponent an early victory. It had nothing to do with what it may or may not have taken to achieve 'European economic autarchy' or some other hand-waving geopolitical grand strategy outcome. You make it sound like if an Axis player does possibly achieve a decisive victory in November 1941, based on exceeding the historical VPs for that date, then that equals Russian surrender. No, it doesn't, it only means the Axis player won a game. That's it. Nothing more.

If you truly believe this game to be an accurate simulation of unparalleled realism so you can emerse yourself in an alternative history universe that supposedly means something very important to you, then that's something a bit different than just playing a wargame. It's just a game.

The thread has taken sort of an interesting side turn toward cataloguing past wargame victory conditions for Russian Front Games. I’m curious if there’s been anything remotely approaching a consensus amongst past game designers and their particular approach to what constituted “victory” on the Eastern Front. Some of the olden time games that come to mind – aside from SPI’s original “War in the East” are:

GDW’s Drang nach Osten

GDW’s Unentschieden

Avalon Hill’s Stalingrad?

The Original Grigsby Game on the War in Russia?

When does the USSR surrender in games like “Third Reich”; or “Hearts of Iron”; or SPI’s old Global War”; or "World in Flames"?

I either have never owned some of these games (like Hearts of Iron or Grigsby’s original War in Russia), or I don’t have copies of any of these games any longer. I can’t recall what each of the designers was using for victory conditions.

The Axis player would do everything in his power to get the objectives and potentially wreck his army doing so. If they then failed they would most likely quit as they would be in no position to compete in a viable way long term.

And in that case the Soviet player would likely be able to roll the wrecked Axis army back and win a decisive victory. Interesting tho, that in my perspective, that is just about what happened historically....

And in that case the Soviet player would likely be able to roll the wrecked Axis army back and win a decisive victory. Interesting tho, that in my perspective, that is just about what happened historically....

Which leads back to the theory that the best chance for an Axis win is strategic defense starting in late summer 42....

Or a very well orchestrated offensive in 41 that takes the victory cities with an army still capable of defending them. I think that is a long shot but possible. Germans achieving the present 290? Never against human Soviet player that is basically competent. The point to keep in sight here is that the SD conditions would be optional, they are intended to create some of the incentive for desperate play by both sides early in the conflict and if not achieved, and players don't quit (I have read of a number of players on both sides quitting "early" now not just Axis), they can grind it out to the gates of Berlin 3 years later.

The Axis player would do everything in his power to get the objectives and potentially wreck his army doing so. If they then failed they would most likely quit as they would be in no position to compete in a viable way long term.

If you don't intend to use them for this reason, isn't your vote actually a "no -- but I don't care if it's optional"?

Ketza, the latter you mention -- wasn't take sort of what happened at Leningrad to a limited degree, AGN having being push very hard to exhaustion, and for sure in the rush for Moscow? It in fact could be used to get the Germans to push harder, also I agree with you that by hindsight will know even taking these objectives the game won't end as the Soviets are not really defeated and can't continue to fight very effectively. Hence, in my opinion the best strategy for Axis is to turn over to the defense at some point to conserve the Army in the long run. Surely something like Kursk in retrospect was just wasting of Axis assets.

Axis should attack as long as it can critically damage the Red Army. Whether Axis can still achieve excellent kill-ratios by late 42 or 43 is a question to be seen, but so far it looks that with the rather evident game bias towards the offensive Axis seems to be perform very well in spring 42 and summer 42. This will mean that the Axis will likely stop offensives by end of 42, and dig in for 43, to be able to survive as long as possible. In turn, Soviet build-up will be sufficient with the bias to offensives that by late 43 the Red juggernaught will rush forward, and will at least not be checked by supply worries. Since that was historically a big worry for the Soviets, likely in game they can completely overrun Axis before end of 44.

That the Wehrmacht being in rather good shape after the 41 blizzard likely is in part due to it not reliving the disorganizing and draining last-ditch efforts for Leningrad and Moscow, which I believe has in part to do with a slight underestimation of the combat effectiveness of the Soviet units in 41/42 (see the quite unimpressive blizzard offensives), which also just naturally put a huge strain on both sides formations, as well as Axis and Soviet players having a huge benefit in form of hindsight and, thus, are using forces more conservatively since this is just a game missing soft factors (like Hitler pushing, or Generals aka players or soldiers truly having to fear for their head and the welfare of their own families, perceived effects on national will to fight etc. etc.).

As such, a Sudden Death rule could in fact be something that could lead the Axis players to overextend in 41 and/or 42, sort of as if Hitler was sitting in their necks. Unfortunately, if implemented consequently, the sad truth should have to strike them in most cases that even if he holds these key cities now with a weakened Wehrmacht, that the Soviets will still be there and not raising their arms. The war goes on. So perhaps sudden death rules with a significant dice roll once the key cities are taken would be a good idea. Say even if Axis takes the cities, there should only be a 25% (or customizable like the other parameters by both players) chance to win? How about that?

Well Capturing Moscow don’t give you Stalin as there is like 7000 miles more Soviet territory left were STAVKA could fall back from Moscow and with allied lend lease supplies and weapons Soviet could have continue resistance even after Moscow falling.

German simply had no fuel, logistics to advance all the way through Siberia to Manchuria.

Y'know, citing a bunch of old wargames made during the Cold War based on extremely limited information is perhaps not the way to go. Maybe, just maybe, they all got it wrong? The victory conditions made in these relics need not detain us, let alone be used as a guide for a modern game.

As some people have said before, for those players who want it, the Barbarossa scenario provides a perfectly good "sudden death" basis for victory (or defeat) and I believe there is no reason to to tinker around with the 41-45 Campaign game to provide additional victory conditions which are ahistorical.

Well Capturing Moscow don’t give you Stalin as there is like 7000 miles more Soviet territory left were STAVKA could fall back from Moscow and with allied lend lease supplies and weapons Soviet could have continue resistance even after Moscow falling.

German simply had no fuel, logistics to advance all the way through Siberia to Manchuria.

Oh, I know that. The reasoning, I think, is that the Stalin counter in that game represents all the bigwig political decision makers.